Sunday, November 27, 2011

America Is Not "Over," But America Of 1945 Is

In every aspect of human existence, change is a constant. Yet change
that actually matters occurs only rarely. Even then, except in
retrospect, genuinely transformative change is difficult to identify.
By attributing cosmic significance to every novelty and declaring every
unexpected event a revolution, self-assigned interpreters of the
contemporary scene -- politicians and pundits above all -- exacerbate
the problem of distinguishing between the trivial and the non-trivial.

Did 9/11 “change everything”? For a brief period after September
2001, the answer to that question seemed self-evident: of course it did,
with massive and irrevocable implications. A mere decade later, the
verdict appears less clear. Today, the vast majority of Americans live
their lives as if the events of 9/11 had never occurred. When it comes
to leaving a mark on the American way of life, the likes of Steve Jobs
and Mark Zuckerberg have long since eclipsed Osama bin Laden.
(Whether the legacies of Jobs and Zuckerberg will prove other than
transitory also remains to be seen.)

Anyone claiming to divine the existence of genuinely Big Change
Happening Now should, therefore, do so with a sense of modesty and
circumspection, recognizing the possibility that unfolding events may
reveal a different story.

All that said, the present moment is arguably one in which the
international order is, in fact, undergoing a fundamental
transformation. The “postwar world” brought into existence as a
consequence of World War II is coming to an end. A major redistribution
of global power is underway. Arrangements that once conferred immense
prerogatives upon the United States, hugely benefiting the American
people, are coming undone.

In Washington, meanwhile, a hidebound governing class pretends that
none of this is happening, stubbornly insisting that it’s still 1945
with the so-called American Century destined to continue for several
centuries more (reflecting, of course, God’s express intentions).

Here lies the most disturbing aspect of contemporary American
politics, worse even than rampant dysfunction borne of petty
partisanship or corruption expressed in the buying and selling of
influence. Confronted with evidence of a radically changing
environment, those holding (or aspiring to) positions of influence
simply turn a blind eye, refusing even to begin to adjust to a new
reality.

Big Change Happening Now

The Big Change happening before our very eyes is political, economic,
and military. At least four converging vectors are involved.

First, the Collapse of the Freedom Agenda: In the wake of
9/11, the administration of George W. Bush set out to remake the Greater
Middle East. This was the ultimate strategic objective of Bush’s
“global war on terror.”

Intent on accomplishing across the Islamic world what he believed the
United States had accomplished in Europe and the Pacific between 1941
and 1945, Bush sought to erect a new order conducive to U.S. interests
-- one that would permit unhindered access to oil and other resources,
dry up the sources of violent Islamic radicalism, and (not incidentally)
allow Israel a free hand in the region. Key to the success of this
effort would be the U.S. military, which President Bush (and many
ordinary Americans) believed to be unstoppable and invincible -- able to
beat anyone anywhere under any conditions.

Alas, once implemented, the Freedom Agenda almost immediately
foundered in Iraq. The Bush administration had expected Operation Iraqi
Freedom to be a short, tidy war with a decisively triumphant outcome.
In the event, it turned out to be a long, dirty (and very costly) war
yielding, at best, exceedingly ambiguous results.

Well before he left office in January 2009, President Bush himself
had abandoned his Freedom Agenda, albeit without acknowledging its
collapse and therefore without instructing Americans on the implications
of that failure. One specific implication stands out: we now know that
U.S. military power, however imposing, falls well short of enabling the
United States to impose its will on the Greater Middle East. We can
neither liberate nor dominate nor tame the Islamic world, a verdict from
the Bush era that Barack Obama’s continuing misadventures in “AfPak”
have only served to affirm.

Trying harder won’t produce a different result. Outgoing Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates caught the new reality best: “Any future defense
secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land
army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head
examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.”

To be sure, Freedom Agenda dead-enders -- frequently found under K in
your phone book -- continue to argue otherwise. Even now, for example,
Kagans, Keanes, Krauthammers, and Kristols are insisting that “we won”
the Iraq War -- or at least had done so until President Obama fecklessly
flung away a victory so gloriously gained. Essential to their argument
is that no one notice how they have progressively lowered the bar
defining victory.

Back in 2003, they were touting Saddam Hussein’s overthrow as just
the beginning of American domination of the Middle East. Today, with
Saddam’s departure said to have “made the world a better place,” getting
out of Baghdad with U.S. forces intact has become the operative
definition of success, ostensibly vindicating the many thousands killed
and maimed, millions of refugees displaced, and trillions of dollars
expended.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia remains in the field, conducting
some 30 attacks per week against Iraqi security forces and civilians.
This we are expected not to notice. Some victory.Second, the Great Recession: In the history of the American
political economy, the bursting of speculative bubbles forms a recurring
theme. Wall Street shenanigans that leave the plain folk footing the
bill are an oft-told tale. Recessions of one size or another occur at
least once a decade.

Yet the economic downturn that began in 2008 stands apart,
distinguished by its severity, duration, and resistance to even the most
vigorous (or extravagant) remedial action. In this sense, rather than
resembling any of the garden-variety economic slumps or panics of the
past half-century, the Great Recession of our own day recalls the Great
Depression of the 1930s.

Instead
of being a transitory phenomenon, it seemingly signifies something
transformational. The Great Recession may well have inaugurated a new
era -- its length indeterminate but likely to stretch for many years --
of low growth, high unemployment, and shrinking opportunity. As incomes
stagnate and more and more youngsters complete their education only to
find no jobs waiting, members of the middle class are beginning to
realize that the myth of America as a classless society is just that.
In truth, the game is rigged to benefit the few at the expense of the
many -- and in recent years, the fixing has become ever more shamelessly
blatant.

This realization is rattling American politics. In just a handful of
years, confidence in the Washington establishment has declined
precipitously. Congress has become a laughingstock. The high hopes
raised by President Obama’s election have long since dissipated, leaving
disappointment and cynicism in their wake.

One result, on both the far right and the far left, has been to stoke
the long-banked fires of American radicalism. The energy in American
politics today lies with the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street,
both expressing a deep-seated antipathy toward the old way of doing
things. Populism is making one of its periodic appearances on the
American scene.

Where this will lead remains, at present, unclear. But ours has long
been a political system based on expectations of ever-increasing
material abundance, promising more for everyone. Whether that system
can successfully deal with the challenges of managing scarcity and
distributing sacrifice ranks as an open question. This is especially
true when those among us who have been making out like bandits profess
so little willingness to share in any sacrifices that may be required.

Third, the Arab Spring: As with the floundering American
economy, so with Middle Eastern politics: predicting the future is a
proposition fraught with risk. Yet without pretending to forecast
outcomes -- Will Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya embrace democracy? Can
Islamic movements coexist with secularized modernity? -- this much can
be safely said: the ongoing Arab upheaval is sweeping from that region
of the world the last vestiges of Western imperialism.

Europeans created the modern Middle East with a single purpose in
mind: to serve European interests. With the waning of European power in
the wake of World War II, the United States -- gingerly at first, but
by the 1980s without noticeable inhibition -- stepped in to fill the
void. What had previously been largely a British sphere now became
largely an American one, with the ever-accelerating tempo of U.S.
military activism testifying to that fact.

Although Washington abjured the overt colonialism once practiced in
London, its policies did not differ materially from those that Europeans
had pursued. The idea was to keep a lid on, exclude mischief-makers,
and at the same time extract from the Middle East whatever it had on
offer. The preferred American MO was to align with authoritarian
regimes, offering arms, security guarantees, and other blandishments in
return for promises of behavior consistent with Washington’s
preferences. Concern for the well-being of peoples living in the region
(Israelis excepted) never figured as more than an afterthought.

What events of the past year have made evident is this: that lid is
now off and there is little the United States (or anyone else) can do to
reinstall it. A great exercise in Arab self-determination has begun.
Arabs (and, arguably, non-Arabs in the broader Muslim world as well)
will decide their own future in their own way. What they decide may be
wise or foolish. Regardless, the United States and other Western
nations will have little alternative but to accept the outcome and deal
with the consequences, whatever they happen to be.

A Washington inhabited by people certain that decisions made in the
White House determine the course of history will insist otherwise, of
course. Democrats credit Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech with inspiring Arabs
to throw off their chains. Even more laughably, Republicans credit
George W. Bush’s “liberation” of Iraq for installing democracy in the
region and supposedly moving Tunisians, Egyptians, and others to follow
suit. To put it mildly, evidence to support such claims simply does not
exist. One might as well attribute the Arab uprising to the 2010
Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Those expecting
Egyptians to erect statues of Obama or Bush in Cairo’s Tahrir Square are
likely to have a long wait.

Fourth, Beleaguered Europe’s Quest for a Lifeline: To a
considerable extent, the story of the twentieth-century -- at least the
commonly-told Western version of that story -- is one of Europe screwing
up and America coming to the rescue. The really big screw-ups were, of
course, the two world wars. In 1917 and again after December 1941, the
United States sent large armies to deal with those who had disturbed
the peace. After the first war, the Americans left. After the second,
they stayed, not only providing soldiers to safeguard Western Europe,
but also rejuvenating the shattered economies of the European
democracies.

Even with the passing of a half-century, the Marshall Plan stands out
as a singular example of enlightened statecraft -- and also as a
testimonial to America’s unsurpassed economic capacity following World
War II. Saving continents in dire distress was a job that only the
United States could accomplish.

That was then. Today, Europe has once again screwed up, although
fortunately this time there is no need for foreign armies to sort out
the mess. The crisis of the moment is an economic one, due entirely to
European recklessness and irresponsibility (not qualitatively different
from the behavior underlying the American economic crisis).

Will Uncle Sam once again ride to the rescue? Not a chance. Beset
with the problems that come with old age, Uncle Sam can’t even mount
up. To whom, then, can Europe turn for assistance? Recent headlines
tell the story:

“Cash-Strapped Europe Looks to China For Help”

“Europe Begs China for Bailout”

“EU takes begging bowl to Beijing”

“Is China the Bailout Saviour in the European Debt Crisis?”

The crucial issue here isn’t whether Beijing will actually pull
Europe’s bacon out of the fire. Rather it’s the shifting expectations
underlying the moment. After all, hasn’t the role of European savior
already been assigned? Isn’t it supposed to be Washington’s in
perpetuity? Apparently not.

Back to the Future

In the words of the old Buffalo Springfield song: “Something’s happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.”

American politicians stubbornly beg to differ, of course, content to
recite vapid but reassuring clichés about American global leadership,
American exceptionalism, and that never-ending American Century.
Everything, they would have us believe, will remain just as it has been
-- providing the electorate installs the right person in the Oval
Office.

“To those nations who continue to resist the unstoppable march of
human, political and economic freedom,” declares Republican presidential
candidate Jon Huntsman, “we will make clear that they are on the wrong
side of history, by ensuring that America’s light shines bright in every
corner of the globe, representing a beacon of hope and inspiration.”

“This is America's moment,” insists Mitt Romney. “We should embrace
the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell,
not wave the white flag of surrender, nor give in to those who assert
America's time has passed…. I will not surrender America's role in the
world.” With an unsurprising absence of originality, the title of
Romney’s campaign “white paper” on national security is An American Century.

Governor Rick Perry’s campaign web site offers this important
insight: “Rick Perry believes in American exceptionalism, and rejects
the notion our president should apologize for our country but instead
believes allies and adversaries alike must know that America seeks peace
from a position of strength.”

For his part, Newt Gingrich wants it known that “America is still the last, best hope of mankind on earth.”

The other Republican candidates (Ron Paul always excepted) draw from
the same shallow and stagnant pool of ideas. To judge by what we might
call the C. Wright Mills standard of leadership -- “men without lively
imagination are needed to execute policies without imagination devised
by an elite without imagination” -- all are eminently qualified for the
presidency. Nothing is wrong with America or the world, they would have
us believe, that can’t be fixed by ousting Barack Obama from office,
thereby restoring the rightful order of things.

“Is America Over?” That question adorns the cover of the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, premier organ of the foreign policy establishment. As is typically the case with that establishment, Foreign Affairs is posing the wrong question, one designed chiefly to elicit a misleading, if broadly reassuring answer.

Proclaim it from the rooftops: No, America is not “over.” Yet a
growing accumulation of evidence suggests that America today is not the
America of 1945. Nor does the international order of the present moment
bear more than a passing resemblance to that which existed in the
heyday of American power. Everyone else on the planet understands
this. Perhaps it’s finally time for Americans -- starting with American
politicians -- to do so as well. Should they refuse, a painful
comeuppance awaits.